Posted on 02/08/2005 5:46:04 AM PST by ksen
OK, now I know the reasoning behind the statement, I just don't believe it.
I did? What is inflammatory about an article that puts forth the Reformed view of Election? Sproul didn't launch into a diatribe in the article. He just laid out in a clear manner what the Calvinist position is.
As for why I posted the article, the discussion on the "Ignorance of God" thread had turned to God's Election so I told FtD that I would post an Election article to continue the discussion on a clean thread.
If you really want "discussion" you should post articles that would foster that discussion....
Such as.....?
There isn't an article that exists that wouldn't be seen as "inflammatory" by one side or the other.
Yeah, you did.
Have a nice thread.
What is inflammatory about this particular article?
We had someone come on and give a testimony of how Sproul's writing helped bring him to Christ.
We had stuartcr on asking things even though he doesn't believe a word of it.
And then we have PM saying that Sproul rejects the Gospel and actually writes against it.
Who is being inflammatory?
If asking questions is inflammatory, then I am definitely guilty.
No, you're questions aren't inflammatory......maddening at times, but not inflammatory. ;^)
So then, you knew it would be inflammatory, and yet you accuse someone else of being inflammatory first???
Isn't that a bit hypocritical??
Becky
Isn't that a bit hypocritical??
No, because I didn't post it with the intention of being inflammatory.
FR rules say that an article needs to be posted to start a thread. I found an article dealing with the issue I wanted brought up and posted it.
I hope you and your family are doing well.
I haven't been following the new NES. Are SD and Old Reggie still going at each other?
Thanks, I was afraid I was losing my touch.
Some are just plain boring. ;^)
One thing I have noticed though, is that even though we get into some knockdown dragouts on this forum I still personally like everyone who participates.
If a member's life gets turned upside down I've seen this forum come together in prayer one for another. It's a beautiful thing.
Can the article be discussed?
Why is it inflammatory to ask a question, or post an article that supports your doctrinal position?
Sproul is a fine teacher and theologian. His musings in this should not bring contention, but a meditation on God and his nature.
The fact is, ksen, that God saved R.C. Sproul because he believed. That is the Gospel truth. The question on the thread is not "Why do I believe?" but "Why did God save me?" Sproul gives the correct answer to that question and then turns around and ridicules the answer by stating that the "deeper question" is....
Ultimately his answer is that he doesn't know. But he does reveal something at the end which is quite telling. He reveals that there is something (something not revealed) in a person that God uses for a determinate choice. "Ultimately, the decision to save us was made in eternity, according to God's divine knowledge of us.
So pick your preposition, but there is something in, on, or about us that God foresees and then uses as a determinate factor in election. It is clear from scripture that the only thing that could be is "CHRIST IN US." And how do we get CHRIST IN US? We invite him in. That is the essence of the Gospel. It is something that Sproul recognizes in the beginning of this article and then refuses to recognize at the end.
So in essence Sproul recognizes the gospel, and then rejects it as too simplistic. Instead he delves deeper and then where does he end up? Confused.
The question is always who will desire come and believe?
Do you have a scripture that says that men must invite Christ to come in?
No RN, the Question (from the thread) is "Why did God save me?" The answer is "that God saved you because you put your trust and faith in Christ when you answered the summons of the gospel."
That is the essence of the gospel. That is why there is an urgency to the gospel message. If people will believe, then they will be saved. All this soteriological reflection results in is confusion. Note the fact that while Sproul could come up with a quick answer to the important question, when he attempted to answer his own deep reflection, he didn't have a clue. That should tell you something about the relative importance of the answer to Sproul's deeper question.
Paul did not go into a long soteriological discussion with the Phillipian Jailer when he asked what he must do to be saved. He just told him he had to believe.
Feel free to show where Sproul "ridiculed" the notion that "God saved you because you put your trust and faith in Christ when you answered the summons of the gospel."
Ultimately his answer is that he doesn't know. But he does reveal something at the end which is quite telling. He reveals that there is something (something not revealed) in a person that God uses for a determinate choice.
No, actually, that's NOT what he is saying. If you look at the rest of the paragraph preceding this final statement, his point is essentially one for infralapsarian predestination over supralapsarian predestination. Sproul is an infralapsarian...he believes that the decree of election was made in the context of the Fall. You are distorting his words in saying he advocates conditional election.
So in essence Sproul recognizes the gospel, and then rejects it as too simplistic. Instead he delves deeper and then where does he end up? Confused.
He's not the one confused, Marlowe. And I should think you would be more careful with your choice of words as to Sproul's approach to the Gospel, unless of course your intent is to challenge Sproul's salvation.
He referenced it as simplistic and only true "on the surface." IMO that is ridicule of those who would respond so "simplistically". He should have stated that it is true, period. But he only referenced it as true "on the surface."
IMO, his intent was to show that those who hold firmly that position are not deep thinkers like he is.
Sproul's belief is not the why he was saved, but the how he was saved.
God saves those whom He has elected to salvation.
I've asked a couple times, but it was probably lost in the general give and take, but is it true that you believe God's election is based on our foreseen faith in Christ?
Ultimately his answer is that he doesn't know. But he does reveal something at the end which is quite telling. He reveals that there is something (something not revealed) in a person that God uses for a determinate choice. "Ultimately, the decision to save us was made in eternity, according to God's divine knowledge of us."
That doesn't say knowledge was of something in, on, or about us. It just says that He knew us. I think that goes back to the whole "What does foreknowledge mean?" conversation.
So pick your preposition, but there is something in, on, or about us that God foresees and then uses as a determinate factor in election. It is clear from scripture that the only thing that could be is "CHRIST IN US." And how do we get CHRIST IN US? We invite him in. That is the essence of the Gospel. It is something that Sproul recognizes in the beginning of this article and then refuses to recognize at the end.
Ok, so God sees Christ in us through our belief. All that was done without His election. Then what is the purpose of election?
Calvinism says Election is what ultimately brings us to faith in Christ. What do you say is the purpose of Election?
So in essence Sproul recognizes the gospel, and then rejects it as too simplistic. Instead he delves deeper and then where does he end up? Confused.
He doesn't reject the Gospel as too simplistic. He rejects certain explanations as too simplistic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.